Tuesday, September 29, 2009

An exhibition currently at Museum Victoria is entitled "Handing on the Key". It's about the supposed dispossession of the Palestinians.

While I have not yet been for a view, I understand that the Museum has produced a very slick brochure which containing a great deal of Palestinian mythology and propaganda (at taxpayer's expense).

There's no sign there of the century long history by Palestinian Arabs of bloodshed and hatred against the Jews of the region. Nothing about the attacks on Jews in the 1920's culminating in the Hebron Massacre of 1929 when 69 Jews were murdered, raped and run out of town, nor of the Arab riots of the 1930's, nor of the constant attacks and massacres of Jews of the 1940's, nor of the threat by the Arab League and invading armies in 1948, the fedayeen murderers in the 50s and 60s, the murderous terrorist attacks of the 70's and 80s, the intifadas and treachery of Arafat after the Oslo Accords.

In particular, there is nothing about Arab-Nazi collaboration in Germany's attempt to bring about a final solution to its Jewish problem headed by the Palestinian Mufti of Berlin. The Museum must believe that this extraordinary collaboration is also a taboo topic.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

I've come across this excellent piece which demonstrates how the Goldstone Kangaroo Court botched up its attempt to defame Israel and its resistance to Hamas terror. It makes Goldstone look like an incompetent gatherer of facts whose job could have been better performed by a first year law student: Blocking the Truth of the Gaza War: How the Goldstone Commission Understated the Hamas Threat to Palestinian Civilians by Col. (res.) Jonathan D. Halevi

Was the UN commission's approach one-sided against Israel, or unbiased and objective as commission chairman Richard Goldstone contended? Statements of Palestinians recorded by the commission and posted on the UN website provide authentic evidence of the commission's methodology and raise serious questions about its intentions to discover the truth.

Commission members did not ask the interviewed Palestinians questions about the activities of Hamas and the other Palestinian terrorist organizations operating in the Gaza Strip which could be classified as war crimes or that were potentially dangerous to innocent Palestinians. Furthermore, there was no serious consideration of Palestinian "friendly fire" incidents, and we can only guess how many Palestinian civilians were killed or wounded by Palestinian fire.Reports issued by the Palestinian terrorist organizations themselves detailed the fighting in a way that often contradicted the Palestinian witnesses. In addition, the witnesses hid vital information from the commission regarding the presence of armed terrorists or exchanges of fire in their vicinity.

On June 28 and 29, 2009, the Goldstone Commission recorded Palestinian statements at the UNRWA headquarters in Gaza City. The following is an analysis of the four main statements, the way the commission interpreted them, and reports from other Palestinian sources which contradict the testimony presented to the commission.

On September 15, 2009, the UN investigating commission known as the Goldstone Commission published its conclusions regarding Israel's Gaza operation (December 27, 2008-January 18, 2009), accusing Israel of violating both international humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions, and committing war crimes.

In response, the Israel Foreign Ministry issued an official statement accusing the commission of bias and one-sidedness, and of ignoring the thousands of Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli civilians which, Israel claimed, made the military operation an absolute necessity. "The one-sided mandate of the Gaza Fact-Finding Mission, and the resolution that established it, gave serious reasons for concern....At the same time the report all but ignores the deliberate strategy of Hamas of operating within and behind the civilian population and turning densely populated areas into an arena of battle," said the ministry.

The Goldstone Commission Never Asked About Palestinian War Crimes

Was the UN commission's approach one-sided against Israel, or unbiased and objective as commission chairman Richard Goldstone contended? Statements of Palestinians recorded by the commission and posted on the UN website provide authentic evidence of the commission's methodology and raise serious questions about its intentions to discover the truth. Commission members did not ask the interviewed Palestinians questions about the activities of Hamas and the other Palestinian terrorist organizations operating in the Gaza Strip which could be classified as war crimes or that were potentially dangerous to innocent Palestinians. They never asked about:

Launching rockets at Israeli towns and villages from within residential dwellings;Firing mortar shells into Palestinian neighborhoods when IDF forces were operating in or near the area;

Firing anti-tank missiles, rifles, and machine guns at Palestinian buildings in Gaza suspected of having been entered by IDF forces despite the presence of Palestinian civilians in the area;

Seizing private homes from which to ambush IDF forces;

Booby-trapping houses before and during the war and detonating the bombs;

Planting various types of anti-personnel and anti-vehicle IEDs near houses and detonating them;

None of the statements taken by the commission (as posted on the UN website) reported even one single instance of the presence of armed Palestinians, or of armed Palestinians firing rockets at Israel or shooting at IDF forces operating in the Gaza Strip. There was no serious consideration of Palestinian "friendly fire" incidents, which occurs with the most disciplined armies, but is not adequately examined as an explanation for Palestinian losses, and we can only guess how many Palestinian civilians were killed or wounded by Palestinian fire. In fact, they reported that throughout the entire three weeks of fighting there was no significant Palestinian resistance.

The commission did not press the witnesses in order to elicit more information and did not confront them with the reports issued by the Palestinian terrorist organizations themselves, which detailed the fighting in a way that often contradicted the Palestinian witnesses. It did not adequately examine Palestinian rules of engagement - or the lack of any such rules. In addition, the witnesses hid vital information from the commission regarding the presence of armed terrorists or exchanges of fire in their vicinity, casting doubt on their reliability.

Case Studies: Analysis of Palestinian Testimony to the Goldstone Commission

On June 28 and 29, 2009, the Goldstone Commission recorded Palestinian statements at the UNRWA headquarters in Gaza City, and posted the questions and answers on the commission's website.1The following is an analysis of the four main statements, the way the commission interpreted them, and reports from other Palestinian sources which contradict the testimony presented to the commission:

Statements from the al-Silawi Family

Three members of the al-Silawi family were interviewed by the commission: Moussa al-Silawi (91, blind), Sabah al-Silawi (Moussa's wife), and Mouteeh al-Silawi, a Hamas official.2 The most detailed statement was that of Mouteeh al-Silawi, deputy director of the Hamas administration's Muslim religious endowments ministry for the northern Gaza Strip, who said he was giving a sermon when the mosque was attacked. He claimed that there was no military activity in the Ibrahim al-Maqadma mosque or around it during the attack. Worshippers came to the mosque seeking a safe haven on the assumption that it was a secure place. The evening and night prayers were said one after another to prevent unnecessary movement of worshippers outside the mosque. Israel committed a war crime in violation of international law by attacking civilians in a mosque.

The commission members asked: What is the name of the mosque and where is it located? What was the date of the event? Was a warning given before the attack? When was the mosque built? Were the people killed the supporters of families? Was there a noise before the explosion and what damage did it do? How many people were killed and wounded in the attack? How many people were in the mosque when it was attacked? How far is the mosque from the nearest hospital? Does the hospital have a sufficient quantity of medical equipment and are its services sufficient?

They also asked: Under what conditions are the two prayers [evening and night) joined? Do more people come when prayers are joined? Was this the first time the prayers were joined? When does the evening prayer begin and when does it end? When prayers are joined, exactly how much time elapses between them? When, during the confrontation, did the mosque begin joining the prayers? Was January 3 the first day the prayers were joined?

Many of the questions were irrelevant and unconnected to the circumstances of the event. The commission members did not ask about armed men in the mosque, whether it was used for military purposes or incited worshippers to carry out terrorist attacks against Israel. They did not ask if there were weapons in the mosque, if armed men were operating near the mosque, whether Hamas and its Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades controlled the mosque and used it to recruit operatives, or the identity of the casualties and their organizational affiliation (including members of the al-Silawi family).

An examination of freely accessible Palestinian sources shows that the casualties in this incident were terrorist operatives and included members of the al-Silawi family, who were represented to the commission as innocent civilians.

The terrorists killed in the attack included:

Ibrahim Moussa Issa al-Silawi, an operative in the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas' military-terrorist wing. Born December 1, 1946, in Jabaliya in the northern Gaza Strip. According to the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades website, Ibrahim "received his love of jihad and hatred for the Zionist enemy with his mother's milk." In 1984 he joined the Islamic Movement (which later became Hamas) and was a Muslim Brotherhood operative. He had close relations with Nizar Riyyan, a senior Hamas terrorist operative, and joined the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades in 2003, at the age of 38. He was posted to the northern Gaza Strip brigade and participated in military missions: manning front-line positions in Jabaliya, fighting IDF forces, and digging and preparing tunnels for Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades use.3

Omar Abd al-Hafez Moussa al-Silawi (Abu Souheib), an Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades operative. Born in Saudi Arabia on September 29, 1981, and joined Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2004 he joined the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades and was posted to front-line positions on the eastern border of Jabaliya. He also prepared and planted IEDs, participated in fighting the IDF, and launched mortar shells and Kassam rockets at Israeli towns and villages.4

Sayid Salah Sayid Batah, an Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades operative. Born on April 7, 1986, in Jabaliya. A Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood operative, he joined the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades and was deployed in the northern Gaza Strip brigade. He was posted to front-line positions in Jabaliya, prepared and planted IEDs, and dug and prepared tunnels for Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades use.5

Ahmed Hamad Hassan Abu Ita, an Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades operative. Born in Saudi Arabia on February 15, 1984. A Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood operative, he joined the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades in 2006 and was posted to front-line positions. He fought the IDF in the Jabaliya, al-Salatin and al-Atatra regions, prepared and planted IEDs, was deployed in the suicide bombers' unit, and regularly participated in ambushes against IDF soldiers. The Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades website reported that he was one of the operatives who received instructions, after the initial Israeli air attack on December 27, to deploy in accordance with previous instructions. According to the website report, on January 3 he went to the Ibrahim al-Maqadma mosque to meet "young people" and was killed in the IDF attack there.6 [Note: The Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades version clearly shows that Hamas uses mosques as meeting places for its operatives to coordinate their fighting against the IDF.] His father said that during the first week of the fighting his son launched rockets into Israeli territory every day.7

Muhanad Ibrahim al-Tanani (Abu Islam), an operative in the Al-Quds Battalions, the military-terrorist wing of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, born April 23, 1988. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad website reported that his parents brought him up to love jihad. When the Second Intifada broke out he was 12, and often went to the Erez crossing with other children to throw rocks at the IDF post and confront the soldiers. In 2002 he joined the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and later its military-terrorist wing. He underwent military training and was posted to front-line positions on the northern border of the Gaza Strip. In addition to his military activities he participated in Palestinian Islamic Jihad meetings and events, and led the organization's Internet forums.8

Rajah Nahad Rajah Ziyyada, 18, an Al-Quds Battalions operative.9

Ahmed Assad Diyab Tabil, 16, a Hamas operative, was a member of the Hamas student organization, which recruited him into the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades.10

Statement of Mohammed Fuoad Abu Askar

Mohammed Fuoad Abu Askar represented himself to the commission as the director-general of Hamas' ministry of Muslim religious endowments.11 He said he had been detained in Israel in 1992 for belonging to Hamas. He told the commission that his house was "unjustly" blown up by the IDF. He said he had received a telephone call warning him to evacuate the house from someone who identified himself as an IDF representative and that twenty minutes later his house was struck from the air.

Askar said a short time later the area around the Al-Fakhura school was also bombed. The school served as a shelter for many Palestinians from Beit Lahiya, Al-Salatin and Al-Atatra, who regarded it as a safe haven because it was located in the middle of the refugee camp and it was flying the UNRWA flag. He said he saw three bombs hit the school region and he heard more. Two hit the house of the Diyab family, killing 11 people. Dozens of people were killed near the school and most of the casualties were children. There were no armed men in the area, as opposed to Israeli claims. Two of his children, Khaled and Imad, were killed, as was his bother Raafat, all of them, according to Askar, innocent civilians.

The commission members asked: Was the telephone warning you received a recorded announcement and what did you do following it? Did you receive the call via a land line or cell phone? Where did you go when you left the house? How much time passed between the attack on the Al-Fakhura school and the attack on the Diyab family house? Did you or any of your family visit the Diyabs' house after the attack on yours?

Although Mohammed Fuoad Abu Askar admitted being a Hamas operative and having been detained by Israel, the commission did not think to ask whether he was connected with the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades. They did not ask him whether those killed near the school belonged to any organization or were military-terrorist operatives.

An examination of freely accessible Palestinian sources shows that contrary to his claims, he and his sons were directly and closely linked to the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, a connection which included providing terrorist operatives with weapons and ammunition, and that there were a number of Palestinian terrorist operatives in the Al-Fakhura school area, as follows:Mohammed Fuoad Abu Askar himself plays a key role in the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades.12 Some of his sons also belonged to the Brigades, among them Khaled (killed in the attack), Ahmed (killed on July 7, 2006, when he tried to launch an anti-tank missile against an IDF force),13 and Osama (critically wounded fighting the IDF on October 13, 2004).14

Khaled Mohammed Fuoad Abu Askar (Abu al-‘Izz), Mohammed's son, an Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades operative, was born on December 12, 1989, in Jabaliya. At the age of 15 he joined the Muslim Brotherhood and was active in the Hamas student organization, which serves as a recruiting agency for the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades. In 2006 he was accepted into fighting groups posted in front-line positions. He underwent an advanced military training course and was posted to a special unit of the north Gaza battalion where he participated in dozens of ambushes and fought against IDF forces. He served as a military instructor in the Imad Aqel battalion and supervised the ambush and suicide unit.

He was supposed to be the third member of a Hamas squad in a suicide bombing attack on October 26, 2007, but an operative named Ghassan al-Ela was sent in his place. Khaled was offended and demanded to be sent on a suicide bombing mission. In March 2008 he was sent to ambush IDF forces operating in the northern Gaza Strip, but because of conditions on the ground the attack was aborted. He again demanded to be put at the top of the suicide bomber list. On June 4, 2008, he and four other Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades operatives prepared a suicide bombing attack, but a technical error caused the bomb to explode and he was the only one who survived. He again demanded to be sent on a suicide bombing mission, although he had gotten married on December 12, 2008.

He was killed in January 2009 in the attack in the region of the Al-Fakhura school. The Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades website reported that during the last months of his life he worked for the military supply unit and provided operatives with weapons, missiles, and military equipment. This information is particularly important because it supports IDF intelligence that the house of Mohammed Fuoad Abu Askar, where his son Khaled lived, served as an Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades weapons storehouse.15

Others terrorist operatives killed in the same incident included:

Bilal Hamzah Obeid, an Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades operative, who was killed along with Khaled Abu Askar in the attack near the Al-Fakhura school.16

Raafat Abu Askar, a military-terrorist operative in the security services with the rank of warrant officer, killed in the attack near the Al-Fakhura school.

Abd Muhammad Abd Qudas, a Fatah operative active in Palestinian Military Intelligence, killed in the attack near the Al-Fakhura school.19

Atia Hassan al-Madhoun and his son, Ziyad al-Madhoun, operatives in the Brigades of National Resistance, the military-terrorist wing of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Atia was regional commander for Jabaliya. The two were the father and brother of Hassan al-Madhoun, one of the senior commanders of Fatah's Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, who was lynched by Hamas in the summer of 2006. The two were killed in the attack near the Al-Fakhura school.20

Statements of Wail and Salah al-Samouni

Wail and Salah al-Samouni described the shelling of Wail's house, where the extended al-Samouni family had sought shelter and where more than 20 people were killed.21 They told the commission: At about 5:30 a.m. on the morning of January 5 Wail left the house with some other men to bring wood for a fire. As soon as they left the house a helicopter filed a missile at them and then a number of missiles as the house. After the house was hit the wounded proceeded toward Salah a-Din Street and were refused medical attention by the IDF soldiers. Salah claimed that the soldiers fired shots over their heads to frighten them and make them leave more quickly. They said there was no activity of armed Palestinians around the house where the family members had sought shelter. Salah al-Samouni said that "everyone is a farmer, I swear to Allah that everyone is a farmer," and rejected the possibility that they were armed or wanted.The commission members asked: Can Wail describe the soldiers and identify them according to their voices and uniforms? How did the IDF forces destroy the agricultural land near the house? How large was the agricultural area destroyed by the IDF? Was the witness treated at the Shifa Hospital?

The commission did not ask about the identity of the dead Palestinians and about the possibility that some of them were terrorist operatives. It did not challenge their claim that there were no armed Palestinians in the area, despite reports by both Palestinian terrorist organizations and the IDF about exchanges of fire in the area. In addition, the commission did not press the witness about his claim that the soldiers did not provide medical attention, in contradiction of a statement given by a female member of the family who told the NGO B'tselem that the soldiers had given them medical aid.

An examination of freely accessible Palestinian sources shows that Wail and Salah al-Samouni hid important details from the commission which could shed light on the event. An examination of their statements and the statements of other members of the al-Samouni family to human rights organizations and published in Palestinian newspapers raises questions as to the veracity of their version of what actually happened on January 5.22

Members of the family repeatedly claimed that all the people in the house were ordinary civilians. However, at least three were affiliated with Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Meisa al-Samouni did not tell B'tselem that her husband, Tawfiq Rashad Hilmi al-Samouni, who was killed on January 5, was a Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist operative. She and the other members of the extended family, including Wail and Salah (who gave statements to the Goldstone Commission), never mentioned or hinted that other family members in the house at the time were Palestinian Islamic Jihad operatives, among them Muhammad Ibrahim Hilmi al-Samouni and Walid Rahad Hilmi al-Samouni. A Palestinian Islamic Jihad flyer noted that Muhammad and Walid al-Samouni were active in fighting against the IDF in the Zeitun neighborhood.

The al-Samouni family members firmly adhere to the version that there was no Palestinian military activity near the house and that the nearest military activity was at least a mile away, and that, they claimed, was limited to firing rockets into Israeli territory, not close fighting.However, the official Palestinian Islamic Jihad version is completely different. In a statement issued on January 5, Palestinian Islamic Jihad said that on the evening of January 4 its fighters had fired an RGP from the Zeitun neighborhood at an Israeli tank and had opened fire at IDF soldiers. At 1:20 a.m. on January 5, a Palestinian Islamic Jihad engineering unit detonated a 50-kg. bomb near an Israeli tank not far from the Al-Tawhid mosque near the house of Wail al-Samouni. At 6:30 a.m., the engineering unit detonated a bomb near an IDF infantry unit operating near the Al-Tawhid mosque in the Zeitun neighborhood.23 According to another official Palestinian Islamic Jihad statement, one of its operatives was killed in fighting nearby. His name was Muhammad Ibrahim al-Samouni.

The significance of the foregoing is that the four men who left the al-Samouni house in the early hours of the morning, among them Muhammad Ibrahim al-Samouni, did not necessarily do so for the innocent reasons given by their family. They might have gone out for a reason connected to the military activities taking place in the same area between Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist operatives and IDF forces. Palestinian Islamic Jihad reported that operatives of its military-terrorist wing, the Al-Quds Battalions, "surprised the occupation forces and attacked them from behind their lines, and there was a fierce battle in the southern part of the Zeitun neighborhood." Another report, given "exclusively to the Muslim Brotherhood website," detailed Palestinian Islamic Jihad activities in the Zeitun neighborhood on January 5: "According to eye-witnesses, the fighters of the resistance waited and barricaded themselves in secure locations, remaining in places inhabited by civilians, from which they left to carry out planned attacks against the forces of the Zionist occupier."

Statement of Khaled Muhammad Abd Rabbo

Khaled Abd Rabbo reported on the deaths of two of his children on January 7, 2009.25 Khaled lives in Jabaliya near the Israeli border in a four-story house. He and his family did not leave it even when the land battles began. He claimed he saw no activity of armed Palestinians in the area. He said that on January 7 an IDF force entered the area around his house and positioned tanks nearby. The soldiers used a megaphone to call the residents out of the house. They came out holding a white flag, and one of the soldiers got out of a tank and shot at his children for no reason. He said two of his daughters were killed, another was seriously wounded, and his wife was also wounded.

No questions were asked by the members of the commission, not about the events, or whether there was fighting in the area, or whether there were armed Palestinians.

Contrary to the claims made by Khaled Abd Rabbo, Palestinian sources reported on armed Palestinian activity in the area near the incident and on exchanges of fire between Palestinians and IDF forces. At the time Khaled claimed his daughters were shot by IDF soldiers, four other Palestinians were killed nearby: Ibrahim Abd al-Rahim Suleiman, 19, an Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades operative; Shadi Issam Hamad, 33, a Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (George Habash) operative; Muhammad Ali al-Sultan, 55, an Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades operative; and Ahmad Adib Faraj Juneid, 26, an Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades operative.26

The circumstances of Ahmed Juneid's death shed light on the event: Ahmed Juneid joined Hamas in 2003 and later joined the Muslim Brotherhood and also became an Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades operative. He was posted to the front-line positions in Jabaliya, joined the Brigades' sabotage and suicide bomber unit, and participated in ambushes and fighting with IDF forces. According to the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades website, Ahmed Juneid was another one of its operatives who, after the IDF attack on December 27, 2008, was ordered to take up a position at the front according to previous instructions. According to the website report, on January 7 he participated in an ambush of IDF soldiers in one of the houses in the eastern part of Jabaliya along with other Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades operatives. The Hamas squad was identified by the IDF and an exchange of fire ensued. The IDF force was forced to withdraw and armed vehicles were brought in, forcing Juneid to leave the house he was in and go elsewhere. A surveillance plane located him and fired a rocket, killing him.27

The Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades report reveals information about the exchange of fire between the IDF and armed Palestinians in the area where Khaled Abu Rabbo's daughters were killed, and its closeness in time to the events he reported. His version and the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades website provided similar descriptions of the advance of IDF armored vehicles into the area at the same time. However, Khaled Abu Rabbo did not tell the UN commission about the exchanges of fire between IDF forces and Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades operatives. The possibility cannot be ruled out that his children were caught in the crossfire and may have been killed by Palestinians.

As we can see from a detailed analysis of freely accessible Palestinian sources (in Arabic), competing explanations exist that counter the claims of the Palestinian witnesses who testified before the Goldstone Commission. At the same time, questioning by the members of the commission proved to be superficial and was ill-suited to elicit the truth about events in Gaza.

Col. (res.) Jonathan D. Halevi is the research director for the Orient Research Group and a research fellow of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Halevi previously served as a senior adviser for political planning in Israel's Foreign Ministry

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

For sheer mendacity and spite towards the Jewish State you couldn't go past the late 60 Minutes presenter Richard Carleton who not only presented his reports on the Israel/Palestine conflict with bias but also with a blatant disregard for most of the facts.

He now has an heir apparent at 60 Minutes in the form of Liam Bartlett who began his segment on Israeli settlers with the following lie - "hundreds of thousands of Jewish settlers are moving into the West Bank, building new towns on Palestinian land."

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

I am a Holocaust survivor, therefore I cannot help but regard all events that effect my country, Israel, from the point of view of a Holocaust survivor. Many of us after our liberation came here to fight in the War of Independence and help re-establish the state of Israel.

Those of us who survived the wars, established families brought children and grand children to the world and today our grand children in whose hands we leave the safety of this country and the safety of each individual, may be accused by you of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Our grand children, who bodily stand between the Hamas terrorist of Gaza and hundreds of millions of Islamic fanatics who openly declare to the whole world that they will and must destroy us are being accused by you, Mr. Goldstone of crime against Humanity . And what were their war crimes? And how else were they going to ferret out each Hamas terrorist hiding behind the women and children? The same terrorists who were shooting off rockets into Israel for eight bloody years? And why did Israel wait eight years to start with, while every country in the world would have sent in their armies after the first rockets hit their towns?

We waited because we knew that if we go into Gaza trying to ferret out the rocket attackers, a Mr. Goldstone would appear with his lofty sickening biased morality and declare our grand children war criminals! We finally had to send them in because larger and larger rockets were arriving from Iran and a million Israelis were threatened by these rockets. That was not only unacceptable, but also intolerable. What would you have us do Mr. Goldstone? How were we going to defend our towns against these attacks? If by your definition our grand children are war criminals what are the Americans, the British and all the NATO forces who mercilessly bombarded Afghanistan killing thousands of civilians, the Americans and British in Iraq, the Russians who did the same in Chenchnya? I would agree to be called a war criminal if we simply sent in our planes and bombarded Gaza into the Stone Age like the Americans did in Afghanistan. But we did not do it, Mr. Goldstone. Instead we sent in our grand children to be killed by the Hamas terrorist in order to avoid reducing Gaza to rubble.

And for this our grand children are war criminals?

I was in Dachau, Mr. Goldstone, when five hundred American plans would fly over our heads almost daily and drop thousands of bombs on Munich's civilian population reducing the town to rubble and killing thousands of civilians. At the end of the war the British dropped thousands of incendiary bombs on Dresden killing hundreds of thousands civilians. The war was over, still they did it. Perhaps you should call all those war criminals before you so blatantly accuse us?

I know it is much easier to accuse the Jews than the Americans, or the British or the Russians, although by your definition they are the real war criminals. No, Mr. Goldstone, war is not a nice thing, but if you want to stay alive, we Jews have learned by experience, that unless we defend ourselves, no one else will defend us. What really we find despicable of you is that you as a Jew accepted to participate in a committee that a priori condemned us. Your feeble excuse is that the UN only gave you a mandate to investigate Israel's war crimes in Gaza! By accepting your role on this committee you declared yourself the enemy of Israel. I think that you would very few Israelis who wouldn't agree with me.

Mr. Goldstone, condemning Israel is as if you would condemn the British and the French for starting World War Two, after all it was France and Britain who declared war on Germany. And ignoring the fact the Germans attacked Poland first!

As far as I am concerned, as a survivor, You, Mr. Goldstone are doing a selection (like in the good old days) singling out Israel, a small country trying to survive the constant onslaught of millions of Arabs.

You picked us as a convenient target when by your definition of war crimes your true target should have been America, Russia, NATO forces who sent in heavy bombers to drop thousands of bombs on civilian targets, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya, Belgrade and hundreds of other places around the world. If we should follow your dictate the world has no right to defend itself against terrorism, as terrorism deliberately hides itself behind women and children and innocent civilians, if we do we are to be classified as war criminals?

Mr. Goldstone, it was from Gaza that the rockets came bombarding Israeli towns for eight years, and it is a fact that the Palestinians voted Hamas into power. They started the war. Those who start a war should be blamed before those who defend themselves are blamed. You chose to ignore that fact.

All I can add is that as a judge, you are bigoted like the rest of the UN institutions, and as a Jew, shame on you.

Monday, September 21, 2009

The pro Palestinian lobby group Australians for Palestine has released a statement in which it welcomes the findings of the Goldstone Report which condemned both Israel and the Palestinians for allegedly committing war crimes and human rights abuses during the 2008/9 War in Gaza - AFP STATEMENT.

In welcoming the Goldstone Report the Palestine Lobby has accepted the complicity of the Hamas led government in Gaza in committing war crimes even though the statement avoided mention of that part of Goldstone's report.

Israel and its supporters have roundly condemned the report's findings so it is curious indeed that the Palestine Lobby in Australia has jumped in and accepted it all chapter and verse. Curious but no surprise because this lobby is reticent when it comes to the atrocities committed in the name of the Palestinian people by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah.

A more rounded approach to Goldstone's biased report is this critique from the ALP's Michael Danby taken from Hansard:

The Goldstone Commission, which has just reported in Geneva, probably will not be discussed much by this parliament, reflecting its lack of credibility and the fact that the Australian government, I am sure, does not take it seriously. The mandate of this regrettable commission, investigating the divisive problem of the Middle East, has been troubled from the beginning. All of the European Union, Switzerland, Canada, Korea and Japan, refused to be associated with the UN Human Rights Council mandate for this commission because it was so biased. Distinguished individuals such as former Irish president Mary Robinson refused invitations to head the commission since it was guided not by human rights but by politics.

In fact, her statement said:

I absolutely condemn what Hamas does. And that also should be a subject of inquiry - that is, the war that took place in the Middle East at the beginning of this year.

She continued:

And unfortunately, the Human Rights Council passed a resolution seeking a fact-finding mission to only look at what Israel had done, and I don't think that's a human rights approach. We need an inquiry to look at the violations of international humanitarian law by-potential violations by all sides.

That would be much fairer than the kangaroo court that, regrettably, has been established by this commission.

There is good old Australian racetrack terminology that describes the Goldstone commission: this is a race horse sired out of malice, out of a mare named Hypocrisy. I want to cite some of the background of the incredible one sidedness of the UN report that, regrettably, has been brought down by Justice Goldstone's commission in Geneva.

The mandate set by the Human Rights Council, run by such luminaries as Cuba, Zimbabwe, Libya et cetera pursuing it, was:

... to investigate all violations of International Human Rights Law and ... Humanitarian Law that might have been committed at any time in the context ofthe military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period 27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009 ...

Now, the point about that immediately leaps out from the above is that it sets a framework where only the military action in Gaza, not what preceded it, can be investigated. As a humanitarian and as a supporter of human rights, I would not mind if a fair-minded Human Rights Council from the United Nations investigated that conflict. But you must look at what preceded the Israel army's action in Gaza. The 8,000 rockets that landed on Israeli southern cities would be the subject as well of any investigation by a genuine humanitarian-any fair-minded person, any fair-minded United Nations organisation. The Goldstone commission is even more curious since UN Resolution S-9/1, which established the mandate for the Goldstone commission, said the Human Rights Council:

... decides to dispatch an urgent, independent ... fact-finding mission, to be appointed by the President of the Council, to investigate all violations of international human rights law ... by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people ... particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression, and calls upon Israel not to obstruct the process of investigation and to fully cooperate with the mission.

One can understand why the Israelis, given the fact that nothing on their side was to be looked at and only what was happening in Gaza was to be looked at, would not cooperate with the mandate at all. What a very curious humanitarian commission that examines only one side. Most claims were unverifiable, made by various NGOs, including Human Rights Watch, which recently approached me to broaden their activities in Australia. Regrettably, I could not pursue their request, since Human Rights Watch have been soliciting fundraising efforts in Saudi Arabia- an extraordinary thing for a humanitarian organisation to do, given that country's record on religious freedom, the rights of women et cetera. It is disgraceful that Human Rights Watch apparently decided to solicit funds from Saudi zillionaires on the basis of their highly critical views of the Israeli position. Goldstones ridiculous repeatedly refers to Gaza as occupied even though the Israeli's unilaterally withdrew 5 years ago. No wonder so many people think some of these UN organizations exist in a parallel universe.

Let me speak some truth about power here. The resolution to the problems in the Middle East will come when people have considerations for all sides. President Obama will soon gather together the President of the Palestinian Authority and the Prime Minister of Israel, with the purpose of reviving the talks and reaching a two-state solution. We all know this has been the Australian position since partition; this has been the just position from the beginning. That is where justice will come from, not from this one-sided report which will only set back prospects of political settlement.

Saturday, September 19, 2009

If anything, Israeli actions are far less brutal than the behaviour of China in Tibet, the US during Vietnam, Indonesia in Aceh and formerly East Timor, and Russia in Chechnya. This is to say nothing of the persecution of minority racial or religious groups within Zimbabwe, Sudan, Iran, Rwanda and elsewhere. But no proposals have been made to boycott all academics within these countries. Nor is there any plan to boycott Palestinian or Arab academics who endorse suicide bombings and other violent attacks on Israeli civilians.

Despite their logic, I don't expect it will take long for the ideologues like Loewenstein et al to do what they do best - whine an raise unsubstantiated allegations of Israeli misdeeds while they sweep under the carpet any semblance of Palestinian racism and their threats to destroy the Jewish State and murder its Jewish population. I'll give them a day or two.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Sir Richard "Uncle Tom" Goldstone on the job for his masters at the UN

Israel has called the Goldstone Commission Report "nauseating" on Tuesday, accusing it of creating an unjust "equivalence of a democratic state with a terror organization" and lacking the context of a decade of terrorist attacks by Hamas - 'We Don't Need Lessons In Morality From Syria, Somalia'

Foreign Ministry spokesman Yossi Levy is quoted as follows:

Israel has examined itself in the light of day in innumerable investigations and a robust system of independent courts. We have nothing to be ashamed of, and don't need lessons in morality from a committee established by Syria, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Somalia.Israel is "nauseated and furious about a report that did not surprise us in its imbalance, but did surprise us in the lack of any real pretense to balance," he said, calling it "one of the most disgraceful documents in the long collection of shameful documents put out by the United Nations."

The immediate message of this report is: Terror pays. It says that terrorists who attack Jews, unlike terrorists who attack Americans, Spaniards, or other Arabs, will earn the protection of the UN.

The tragedy for what is left of the free world and for the Jewish people in particular is that one of the major enablers of this disgrace is a Jew himelf - Sir Richard "Uncle Tom" Goldstone whose name will live in infamy as the man who allowed himself to be used by the terrorists to destroy any semblance of international law when it comes to dealing with murderous terrorists.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

The long awaited Goldstone report which was commissioned by the United Nations to expose Israeli 'war crimes' during Operation Cast Lead, has been released. The full report is contained here in this 574 page pdf document.

Unsurprisingly, the Commission found evidence of 'war crimes' and 'possible crimes against humanity' committed by Israel during the course of Operation Cast Lead. It also found evidence of similar crimes committed by the 'Palestinians' but the betting is that this part will be swept under the carpet if it hasn't already been.

The Commission believes that Israel can be referred to the International Criminal Court. However, it does not recommend that happen immediately. Instead, it is recommending that Israel be given six months to put IDF soldiers on trial for 'war crimes' and to report back to the UN Security Council on what those trials have shown and how many people have been convicted of 'war crimes.'

Israel has already conducted several trials and investigations as a result of Operation Cast Lead, but there has only been one instance of a conviction of a soldier having violated the rules of war.

Unlike any investiation before Sir Richard Goldstone on behalf of the UN, Israeli trials are based on the rule of law where judges usually weigh up the evidence based on a number of considerations including the credibility of witnesses. Hamas sympathisers who have no chance of passing a lie detector test are not generally regarded as credible witnesses.

Elder of Ziyyon is already doing a great job of fisking the report item by item - here.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Love the Honest Reporting headline about the suspension of Human Rights Watch's Marc Garlasco who is an avid collector of Nazi memorabilia and unsurprisingly has a penchant for preparing questionable reports about Israeli self defence operations - Nazi Fetishist Suspended by HRW.

Sunday, September 13, 2009

Congratulations to ALP member Michael Danby for placing on public record the failure of Crikey and The New Matilda to promptly stamp out racist comments against the Jews, something that would not be tolerated if the subject matter was any other group of people - Creepy vitriolic bigotry of the internet's fringe-dwellers.

"It is clear in my view that New Matilda and Crikey disgraced themselves and the wider circle of Australian journalism and the tolerant ethos that characterizes Australia by publishing clearly bigoted comments in the comments sections of their publications in the first three months of this year."

Friday, September 11, 2009

The once highly respected human rights group Human Rights Watch has had a horror year on the Middle East front after revelations that it had been infiltrated by persons with prior anti- Israel leanings who then reported on allegations of abuses of human rights by Israel.

Now we learn that the man responsible for HRW investigations into what turned out to be another Pallywood scam is apparently an avid collector of Nazi paraphernalia - see NGO Monitor Expert or Ideologues?: HRW’s Defense of Marc Garlasco’s Nazi Fetish

Wednesday, September 09, 2009

THE LIMITS OF POLITE DISCOURSE: EXPOSING PEOPLE TO EVIL IDEAS OR EXPOSING EVIL IDEAS AS...EVIL? by Barry Rubin

(http://www.gloria-center.org After publishing an op-ed by a radical Israeli professor urging a boycott of Israel, Los Angeles Times editorial page editor, Jim Newton, said, “Had Hitler submitted an excerpt from Mein Kampf in the late 1930's [I would have published it] because the world would have benefitted from exposure to evil ideas."

This is an interesting subject for discussion but first it should be noted that Newton misworded his answer, a rather serious mistake for a professional journalist and editor. Perhaps it is even a Freudian slip.

Presumably the world would have benefitted from the exposure of Hitler’s arguments as evil and dishonest. But does the world, to take Newton’s own phrase, benefit “from exposure to evil ideas,” that is, just giving them a bigger audience?

No. After all, those who spread evil ideas do so precisely to win over those who hear them. The world did get exposed to the evil ideas of fascism. One of the main results was a lot of support for it by millions of people in many countries.

And that’s certainly happening a lot nowadays for the contemporary equivalent evil ideas.

The media not only publicizes but reinforces evil ideas on many occasions. Newton’s error shows the problem: the media does not expose evil ideas as evil. It often portrays them as correct and accurate or good or at least just another credible opinion.

Newton’s point also raises another issue: the limits of what has been called “polite discourse.”

In societies practicing free speech—at least up until recently—anything could be said. The pernicious influence of the “hate speech” concept, first applied to Holocaust denial, has been terrible in limiting free and open discussion. In Canada, nominally one of the freest of countries, you can be tried and sentenced for saying or writing something that a group deems offensive.

Newton opposes this, correctly I believe, and upholds the concept of free speech. But, again, he’s not implying he’d publish Hitler because the German dictator had a right to express his views but rather precisely in order to expose them as evil. How does one know that they are evil?

Does this mean the newspaper must publish other material—even a critical introduction—to say that these are evil ideas?

Or does the readers’ common sense and political culture innately tell them these are evil ideas? Surely not all of them would see it as such, as Pat Buchanan, Hitler’s leading contemporary American admirer, or David Irving, his counterpart in Britain, repeatedly remind us.

[Let me digress here for a moment. Hitler’s book, Mein Kampf, makes interesting reading and I analyzed it in my book Modern Dictators to show parallels with Communist and Islamist thinking. This is not to say the three doctrines are alike but they do share a lot in their basic approach to politics, rationality, critique of Western democracy, and prescription of a dictatorship that controls all of society and its institutions.]

Yet when it comes to channels of communication limited by time and space—newspapers, wire services, radio, television, and book publishing—choices must be made. The people who make choices decide what will be published, printed, aired, or broadcast.

The same issue applies to the Swedish government’s treatment of the Israel is murdering Palestinians to steal their organs tall tale. Swedish officials self-righteously portray themselves as defenders of free speech. In reality, though, Swedish government money paid the author who made these outrageous claims and financed publication of his work. The Swedish government did not choose to subsidize someone to write a book in defense of Israel or to point to the very real crimes of radical Islamists and terrorists.

We’re not talking about freedom of speech here but about choices made by government officials and editors.

How do they make those decisions?

These choices are supposedly governed by professional ethics and practices. One factor determining what stories are published is importance; another is balance (representing different views); still another is fairness, giving some reasonable response from those criticized. The “public’s right to know” what its own government and institutions are doing is another consideration. Building ratings or selling newspapers through sensationalism or human interest, is also part of the mix.

Yet there is a limit, boundaries beyond which opinions are not represented. Today, things beyond the pale include anything deemed, racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, and various other categories.

I hesitate to add the word antisemitism to this list since in some ways it is and in others it is not included. Indeed, the acceptability of antisemitic claims and arguments for publication has sharply increased or at least the term has been defined out of existence:

Jews murder little children to drink their blood—antisemitic? Israeli Jews murder little children to drink their blood—not antisemitic? A cartoon showing Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon eating a Palestinian child won a prestigious prize in the United Kingdom.

A credible newspaper would not use its space to run articles saying the world is flat, space aliens live among us, or witches are operating in local jurisdictions. There is a range of items ruled absurd, crackpot, unworthy of consideration. Standards are supposed to rule out the irrational.

Irrationality has played a big role in the history of antisemitism. Being different and not understood, Jews (the original “other”) were deemed capable of anything not within the norm for other humans: poisoning wells, murdering God or gods, conspiring to gain world hegemony, controlling all behind the scenes.

It is common to hear that criticism of Israel does not equate with antisemitism. That’s true. But it is equally true that the way Israel is criticized lied about, demonized, and treated with double standards does duplicate historic antisemitism.

The more extreme will accept the far-out scenarios like Israel murdering people to steal their organs or controlling the world media. The more moderate will only accept scenarios that seem more rational but still include massacres without proof, war crimes without evidence. Indeed, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, opinions remain unchanged both out of partisanship and the view that Israel and/or Jews in general are evil, or at least strange and unpredictable.

Take for example the so-called “Jenin massacre.” The story of this non-event is bizarre. After an Israeli operation in Jenin against terrorists, a single Palestinian individual of unknown background charged that Israeli troops had massacred dozens of Palestinians.

There was not then or afterward a shred of supporting evidence, yet the international media went crazy with the story. After which, Palestinian Authority officials picked it up and further purveyed it.

Even the UN, not exactly friendly to Israel, concluded the story was a hoax, yet today no doubt millions of people believe it. In fact, not long ago I spoke to a former television producer, now member of the governing board that runs television in his English-speaking country, who remains firmly convinced that the story is true.

There are literally hundreds of these propaganda stories produced every month. Like UFO sightings, some may be true but they are all unproven. Now and then one particularly outrageous—as in the Swedish organ theft case—gets exposed but the damage is done nonetheless.

This may not seem responsive to the Los Angeles Times case. It is always tempting to run a “man bites dog” story: Israeli professor calls for boycott of Israel.

But the media is not so innocent for several reasons. First, it sets the tone of debate. The choice is between: Israel should be boycotted! No, it shouldn’t! Rather than: The Palestinian Authority should be pressed into being moderate! No, it shouldn’t! The context is: Israel is or is not a nation of war criminals, not the equivalent case about the Palestinian Authority.

Second, it gives increasing access for extremists and crackpots telling explicit lies, as in the case of the New York Times op-ed where made-up quotes are attributed to Israeli officials.

Here’s an example of a different issue, chosen at random. I’d bet there have been 30 articles and quotes in news stories, op-eds, etc., claiming Syria can be lured away from its alliance with Iran for each one on the other side.

To return to Newton and the publishing Hitler analogy, the problem nowadays is not giving Hitler a platform at all but doing so every day for the contemporary equivalents (Iran’s regime, Hamas, Hizballah, Libya, etc.) in a context implying he was right or at least had a good case. Of course, for ideological reasons Hitler is an unlikely person for such treatment, and perhaps deliberately chosen for that reason. The real area of threat is not on the extreme right but on the far left or among radical Islamists.

There is another problem here as well. Since Palestinian, Arab, and Islamist sources have proven themselves so unreliable in their claims about Israel in the past, shouldn’t they be treated as such now?

When Newton writes about Hitler, he is saying that either the context or readers’ knowledge would tell them Hitler is lying or wrong. But the context of coverage about Israel is such as to validate false claims, while understanding Middle East culture and politics lies too far outside readers’ experience for them to judge for themselves. Indeed, inasmuch as they apply their own experience to such situations, they will be seriously misled.

If, however, the American media was to publish the kinds of things written about the United States in Arabic, then, yes, readers would reject it. For example, al-Ahram, Egypt’s leading newspaper, regularly publishes articles claiming that America is behind international terrorism. Egyptian textbooks claim that the U.S. military attacked Egypt in 1967 and destroyed the country’s air force. Iranian, Syrian, and Saudi media publish worse things.

But the Western media can get away with this sort of thing about Israel to a far greater extent, since it is not only an “other” country but an “other” people. The media often does seem to believe that the world would benefit from “exposure to evil ideas.” Unfortunately, though, these same ideas are portrayed in the newspapers’ pages as being good ones.

The truth is that on many issues, balance and fairness has been tossed away. Journalists and editors not only have strong political views but have abandoned professional standards by promulgating them shamelessly in news coverage. Since journalists and editors are no longer afraid of being punished by losing jobs or damage to reputations by such behavior, there is nothing to hold them back.

With Newton and other journalists denying that this problem even exists—though it’s as evident as the existence of gravity--what hope can there be they will address and remedy it?

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).

SHE showered alone, shaved her legs several times a day and had a gruff, deep voice. Now it is clear why: the Nazis conscripted a man in drag to replace a star Jewish high jumper before the Berlin 1936 Olympics.

Thursday, September 03, 2009

UNRWA chief John Ging is reported to have said that it would be inappropriate to educate Palestinian Arab children about the Holocaust!

An article in Palestine Today (Arabic) quotes Ging as saying "It is not acceptable that Palestinians student are taught the about the Holocaust at a time when Israel is writing off everything related to Palestine in the school curriculum for Palestinian students in Israel."

These are clearly words that could only be uttered by a collaborator with a regime that like the Nazis had a set aim of committing genocide against the Jewish people.

Ging is once again unmasked and with him the entire, rotten organisation that is UNRWA.

Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Some rare factual information about the Arab/Israel conflict in the Melbourne Age (thanks to letter writer Merv Morris):

Borders defined

CRAIG Barrett ( Letters, 31/8) errs in his understanding of the 1967 UN resolution 242 relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Painstakingly crafted before its final adoption, it calls for Israel's withdrawal from ''territories'', not ''the territories'' it won in defending itself from Arab attack in the Six Day War.

The absence of the definite article in the resolution was no oversight but an acknowledgement by its formulators that Israel was indefensible within its pre-1967 borders and that territorial adjustments would be required.

The West Bank, rejected by the Palestinian Arabs in 1947 and 2000, is not ''somebody else's occupied territory''. It remains contested land, the sovereignty of which must finally be decided by Arab- Israeli negotiations to end the conflict.